IntelliBriefs bring you Intelligence briefs on Geopolitics , Security and Intelligence from around the world . We gather information and insights from multiple sources and present you in a digestible format to quench your thirst for right perspective, with right information at right time at right place . We encourage people to contact us with any relevant information that other news media organizations don't cover . Contact :intellibriefs@gmail.com

December 11, 2004

The US National Security Council started preparation of a militaryassault against Iran in order to annihilate nuke potential and changeanti-American clerical regime, London-based Arab-languagenewspaper ¡§A-Shark al-Ausat¡¨ has informed.

According to the newspaper, a group of the US experts employs formertop CIA officer David Kay,former head of an inspection mission to Iraq, retired Gen. SamGardner, an author of occupation strategy in Iraq in the eightiesKennet Folk, Washington Strategic Center ¡§Rokings¡¨ leadingspecialist, former top Pentagon official Kennet Baykon and others.

The plan concludes three major activities:

Twenty four hours on bombing and destroying main Iran airbases andconcentrated forces of the ¡§Islam Revolution Guards¡¨

Missiles and bombs while then assault nuclear objects and non-conventional arms plants-125 objects

Occupation of Iran by the US ground forces located in theneighboring Gulf States, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Iraq.

As ¡§A-Shark al-Ausat¡¨ noticed, this is one of Iraq-like scenarios toconvert Iran into a friendly country,A significant difference is avoiding occupation of Tehran and huge US military presence in Iranian capital. Just a few commandos corpswould be needed to change a government.

Two weeks have been supposed to execute a regime change plan. ¡K..
Information on deliberating possibilities of Iranian militaryresistance, Iraqi Shiites uprising and deploying Israel to destroyIranian nuke objects have most recently been discussed at the groupworking meeting. However, Israel¡¦s involvement is much lessrealistic ¡K because of ¡§Israelis¡¦ understanding of own ammunitionshortage to completely destroy all Iranian nuclear objects¡¨.

The US presence in Iraq inevitably destabilizes SaudiArabia, and the longer US stay the worse it is. US may have already reached a tipping point where, win or lose in Iraq, both results mean an end to Saudi rule. If US crush the "insurgents" in Iraq(exceedingly unlikely to happen), then the anger at the house of Saud boils over and all of the men being drawn into Iraq (about halfof all the suicide bombers are Saudi) turn their eyes to Riyahd. If US lose, which seems inevitable, then a huge force of emboldened,highly radicalized, experienced, and armed men return home to SaudiArabia...any guesses what they will do then? The really bad part here, for the US, is that there will be no way to fix the situation once the house of Saud is thrown out. There will be no way that US can go in with military might, unless US want a true Jihad on a global scale. Should Iraq remain together will be an exactly zero percent chance of a government that is even nuetral towards the US coming to power. Should the country fracture, which is fairly likely, there will be no way to put it back together. In that case frequent wars would be likely between the new countries, and al-Qaeda will find it's ideal home somewherein the mess.
If that happens a geopolitical analyst funnily adds t "I suggest that now would be a good time to buy a quality bicycle andto start building up your endurance on what will be your main mode of transportation before the decade is over."

Tavleen Singh is right when she alleges that Teesta Setalvad has thrived on maligning India for being a country as fundamentalist as our Islamic neighbors. As a matter of fact Teesta Setalvad has left no stone unturned.

The degree with which Teesta Setalvad scorns upon Gujaratis knows no bounds. The year was 2000 when neither Godhra nor its aftermath had occurred - Islamic terrorists had just butchered some 100 pilgrims to Amarnath.

This letter should be an eye opener for those bitten by the “Teesta the activist” humbug. Read it, only Teesta can conjure this bizarre correlation where Islamic terrorists kill Hindu pilgrims and the complain is that Muslims are targets of Hindu militancy!
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15-9-2000/Art15.htmI’d like to point to another piece of interest as well. A conference if you will. In 2003 Teesta and her cohorts were invited to speak on a seminar in Washington DC. The topic of discussion was Hindu Nationalism vs. Islamic Jihad: Religious Militancy in South Asia. Remember this discussion is about religious militancy in all of South Asia. Only the lord can be witness that religious militancy in India is not even a speck of what it is with our Islamic neighbors. Anyway the moderator Tim Shah before handing off the mike to Teesta, John Prabhudoss and Kamal Chenoy Mitra, started off with a two liner - the condition of Christians in Pakistan and then the entire jury went ballistic on Hindu militancy in India - specifically Gujarat! Needless to say the discussion could have been only on India and Hindu militancy.
The proceedings of this conference can be read at:
http://www.eppc.org/publications/programID.17,pubID.1533/pub_detail.asp

A note on the sponsors of this meeting is essential. One of the co-sponsors was Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington DC. The other co-sponsor was INFEMIT. While INFEMIT is unambiguously the international network of evangelical mission theologians and practitioners - The Ethics and Public Policy Center was established in 1976 purportedly to clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and domestic and foreign policy issues. EPPC then became instrumental in the passage of Freedom from Religious Persecution Act, which set up the US Commission for Int’l Religious Freedom/USCIRF. The annual reports of the USCIRF and its censure of India are well known.

So, what motivates one to audit fellow Indians with the intention of inviting the admonishment of a foreign nation? Why does one depose with so much prejudice to a foreign decision maker, knowing fully well that it is Indians - all of them - that will be censured and sanctioned as a result? Who benefits - if India gets sanctioned?
Charging Teesta Setalvad with maligning India, Tavleen Singh asks exactly these questions.
And if one hears Teesta’s spiel from the linked forum – the above is precisely what Teesta was doing.
http://uscirf.gov/hearings/10Jun02/teestaSetalvad.php3?mode=printIn all her appearances abroad, it is Teesta Setalvad’s zeal to attack Gujaratis, Gujaratis only and no one else that is apparent. There is as much evidence that Teesta has taken up causes for Muslims outside of Gujarat or Muslims in other BJP ruled states as there is for her spirit for non-Muslim victims of injustice. For example Teesta has hardly much to show for Muslims in UP even when the BJP ruled there or the BJP governed Madhya Pradesh. Apparently there are no Hindutva laboratories in these states waiting to be hatched. Yeah, she had a good run with the Mumbai blasts of 1992 which brought her into limelight, but come on she has single-handedly taken Gujarat to just another level.

So, why this extraordinary attachment with Gujarat?
Of all bordering states with Pakistan or Bangladesh - Gujarat and Rajasthan are the only ones that have not been largely affected by the machinations of Pakistan. Islamic population in Rajasthan is not significant. But that is not the case in Gujarat, where there is a critical mass. In comparison, Gujarat is extremely prosperous as well. As practiced and perfected in Punjab, Pakistan just needs to fire the pot of dissatisfaction and lo there is a nice unstable border state. Even one carefully chosen representative - one person with a nice high profile working relentlessly for the right money - can keep that pot stirring once the fire is lit.

Teesta's pressure against the strong Hindu ethos of Gujaratis has been systematic and sustained for over ten years now. This is only against Gujarat and Gujarat alone. Go thru older issues of Communalism Combat. The magazine has been targeting Gujarat since its inaugural issue that is available online. Even prior to Godhra or its aftermath the stories were just as horrendous, the propaganda just as fervent. Sometimes I wonder if Teesta herself had a role in the incineration of the train in Godhra. Her reaction just hours after the carnage published in several international dailies already point to a sinister motive. Despite her best efforts to destabilize Gujarat – a bulwark of a state against Pakistan - none of her innumerable efforts prior to Feb 2002 bore any fruit. But setting a train full of hindutvawadis on fire brought to fore the alchemy of this Hindutva laboratory - a laboratory she had repeatedly constructed in her messages but one that had shown no signs of existence at all. It was that proverbial “I told ya so” moment.
So the carnage set the required fire. Only what remained now was that one kept the pot continuously stirred. Take it up with International organizations of various hues - have the US body on religious freedom castigate Gujarat - run ad campaigns - speak courageously as a guest lecturer all around the world - write letters to world leaders. Teesta already had a head start in the propaganda. Only reinforcement was needed. The construct that Muslims in Gujarat are simply unsafe had to be real. The world needed to believe it fully. The Muslims themselves in Gujarat needed to believe it.

This is what I call setting the stage for discontent. For, tomorrow when we hear of the ad nauseam "indigenous struggle for the aspirations of the Gujarati Muslims" – with man, material and moral support from Pakistan – the world should gulp it hook, line and sinker.
Teesta Setalvad has worked tirelessly to bring this to fruition.

CommentaryA few months ago, we had Seema Mustafa in her article on "PM vs. Sonia" openly suggesting that all Brahmins were "devious".

Now, writing in OutlookIndia, we have Saba Naqvi Bhaumik, in
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20041220&fname=BJP+%28F%29&sid=1
use derogatory religious connotations, as in:

"As little Hanumans of the once-purposeful Hindu army scurry off in different directions, Advani appears to have lost the political plot"

Of course, this is the same author, who happily sneered at Hindu protests over the arrest of the Shanakaracharya, but remained strangely quiet on the rioting/mayhem of Hyderabadi Muslims during the arrest of dangerous anti-national and terrorist master-mind "preacher" Naseeruddin. She happily misled readers about the intentions and record of madrassas in this
country - but, please before we fly off the handle on such minor issues - let us remember, bigotry and anti-national musings from the likes of Saba is considered "mainstream" and quite "propah".

In our search for extreme forms of political correctness, we have reached a point where, if you wear the prophylactic of a minority name, any and all mistakes are forgiven - Habibullah demonstrated that anti-India positions get felicitations, if your name indicates the "right" religion. The periodic effluence from Bhaumik, Mustafa and Versey, indicate that anti-national
opinions and religious bigotry will get broad distribution through mainstream media houses, as long you're on the "right" side of the divide.

Of course, Teesta, the great, is absolved of kidnapping, torture and subversion of justice, as long as she's doing it for the "quam".

Well, there's at least one good thing that has come out of Saba's rather fetid writing - we have good proof that reservation for minorities is well-and-alive in private sector media houses. With such baroque but precious constructions as "Uma has, in a manner of speaking, taken the slow
train to Delhi", lets hope that Outlook feels that its minority-writer quota has been well-used.

More in SABA
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv1-&p=Saba+Naqvi+Bhaumik

Below is a statement received from from Chairaman of Balawaristan National Front http://balawaristan.net, Mr.Abdul Hamid , on Terrorist Training camps in Pakistan administered Kashmir. He states that Pakistani Intelligence Organisation ISI is training terrorists in "Factories, Educational and other civilian buildings instead of the previous open camps" .

We are producing the e-mail we received from Mr.Abdul Hamid to the readers of IntelliBriefs

[START]

"Thanks for sending Maqbool Butt daughter-in-laws statement about the terrorist camps in PoK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) and Balawaristan. We had been crying of this much before this statement, but India media did not give any attention towards our statement. It's irony that Indian Home Miniter says that 600% infiltration has come down, while Indian Army Chief says that cross border infiltration has increased. We say that ISI is running is runing terrorist camps as usual in Gilgit Baltistan. In PoK the shape has been changed. Now terrorist camps have been shifted to Factories, Educational and other civilian buildings instead of the previous open camps. Terrorists are free to act within as well as across the LoC with the ful suport of ISI and Pakistani forces.

December 10, 2004

Secure communications are key to global guerrilla ops. One way to accomplish this is through the use of wireless network hacking and Skype. A simple process (amplifications are welcome):
1) Sniff for an unguarded WiFi access point using a tool such as Netstumbler ($150). Focus your efforts by using a map of known networks.
2) Connect to the network using a WiFi enabled PDA or laptop. IP address will be delivered from the network (not likely to be on the FBI's Dragonware list). A low cost directional antenna can extend range markedly (a wok, Chinese parabolic cookware, or the venerable Pringles can -- using Chinese cookware is new but effective).
3) Launch Skype using an ad-hoc profile (change frequently). Skype will provide P2P voice and chat communications with strong encryption.

December 09, 2004

US president George W.Bush chaired a closed-door congressional discussion to denuke Pakistan in eight to ten years, and the interim will serve to put the country on a sound political economic footing, turn it into a welfare state focussing on secular education, health and employment-generation, and tie it up with various international organisations and treaties to make it forward-looking and progressive.
The discussion took place on the basis of a detailed CIA paper, whose findings were endorsed by the Congressional Research Service, and the Bush administration wants to preemptively engage Pakistan categorised with Columbia and Angola as incipiently anti-America before it turns actively hostile like Iran, Syria, and North Korea.
Becoming a declared welfare state, diplomats argue, Pakistan would be in a position to de-jihadiise its society by re-educating its youth and giving them gainful employment, and by virtue of its MNNA status, the US will guarantee its security and resolve its disputes with its neighbours India, Iran and Afghanistan, plus provide weapons and logistics to counter terrorism.
The US move to sell F-16s also falls in the overall scheme to makeover Pakistan, the sales meant to appease domestic constituencies who might otherwise resist American cleansing efforts, but the bottomline, according to diplomatic sources, is to denuke the country with whatever means are possible.
“The long-term goal is to denuke Pakistan,” a diplomat said, “and all the rest are preliminaries to that final goal.”

China and Kazakhstan have finalized a 3.5-billion-dollar deal for laying out a pipeline. Analysts and economists were surprised at the project. Many of them announced that China has reconsidered its foreign economic policies. But its 100-billion-dollar deal with Iran caught the attention of all economists. Iran and China are expected to raise the level of their deals to 200 billion dollars.

Under the deal, Iran exports 10 million tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to China for 25 years and the Chinese state-run company Sinopec gets engaged in exploration, recovery, petrochemical and gas projects. Iran has invested billions of dollars in procurement of equipment for LNG exports. Iran will need 87 vessels for LNG exports up to 2010. Iran’s LNG reserves are estimated to stand at 26.6 thousand billion cubic meters. Iran holds the second largest gas reserves in the world behind Russia and nearly half of its gas reserves are offshore. It may be premature to discuss the geostrategic and geopolitical advantages of Iran-China energy deals but many analysts maintain that these deals pose obstacle to US sanctions on Iran. American embargo bars foreign oil firms from investing more than 20 million dollars in Iranian oil and gas sectors.

But Chinese projected investment in Yadavaran Oil Field transcends the US limits. Yadavaran is predicted to hold 17 billion barrels of crude and is supposed to produce between 300,000 and 400,000 barrels per day. It is located near the giant South Pars Gas Field that holds eight percent of the world’s gas reserves. Shared by Iran and Qatar, South Pars is divided into 18 phases. The United States considers China an obstacle to its interests and Tehran-Peking deal poses a new challenge.

Iran has already signed trade deals with Spain and Italy. Iranian authorities express the hope that Sino-Iranian energy deal will exhort other European countries, India, Japan and even Russia to invest in the Islamic Republic. New Delhi is seriously looking forward to construction of a gas pipeline from Iran. Iran and India signed a memorandum of understanding in 1993 for a 2670-kilometer pipeline but more than 700 kilometers of this project should cut through Pakistan. Russia should learn from these countries and stop its foot-dragging on its nuclear cooperation with Iran. Under pressure from the White House, the Kremlin has still to complete its nuclear reactor in Bushehr. China is likely to outstrip Russia. Iran is undertaking efforts to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and form a powerful Iran-China-Russia alliance in the face of the United States. China, Russia, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan are members of the SCO. China has made a good jump in the Middle East region such that the American frustration is not seriously taken into account.

Chicago, Dec. 9 (AP): The parents of an American teenager killed by gunmen in the West Bank won USD 156 millions from three Islamic groups and an alleged Hamas fund-raiser, one of the first jury awards against institutions based in the United States accused of supporting terrorism.

A federal court jury set USD 52 millions in damages yesterday in the suit brought by the parents of 17-year-old David Boim, who was shot near the Israeli settlement of Beit El. US MagistrateArlander Keys tripled the amount in accordance with US anti-terrorism law.
The Boim case was the first in which jurors awarded damages from US-based charities accused of bankrolling Hamas, according to Boim attorney Nathan Lewin.
It was a fresh blow to a group of Islamic charities and others who have seen their assets frozen and in some cases found themselves under federal indictment for allegedly funding terrorist groups as part of the post Sept. 11 war on terrorism.

Joyce and Stanley Boim, who moved their family from New York to Jerusalem in 1985 for religious reasons and have long fought the case through the courts, were elated.
"I finally have justice for David," Joyce Boim told reporters. "He's up there, smiling down."
Before the trial started, the judge found the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Islami Association "for Palestine and alleged Hamas fund-raiser Mohammed Salah, liable in Boim's death.

The jury found that the Quranic Literacy Institute, a group that translates Islamic relgious texts also was responsible for the 1996 shooting.

On May 13, 1996, 17-year-old David Boim, an American, was standing at a bus stop in the West Bank with fellow yeshiva students when two Palestinian terrorists drove by in a car, shot him in the head, and killed him.
This tragic event led to a sequence of legal moves which culminated earlier this month in the filling of a $600 million civil suit in a Chicago Federal court against several alleged US-based Hamas front organizations.
Here is the complex link between those two events, exactly four years apart: It all began in October 1992, with the passing of a US law enabling victims of terrorism to sue for civil damages against their aggressors.
Then, in January 1995, the Clinton Administration declared Hamas a terrorist group whose assets could be seized.
In April 1996, a US law passed deeming it illegal for Americans to send any money to terrorist groups - even if that money is ostensibly sent to support the "humanitarian" works (hospitals, schools) supported by those groups.
One of Boim's two killers lost his life in September 1997, in the course of a suicide attack in Jerusalem that killed 5 civilians and injured 192.
In February 1998, the other killer confessed to murdering Boim and a Palestinian Authority court sentenced him to ten years in prison at hard labor.
In June 1998, the FBI seized $1.4 million in assets (including bank accounts, a house, and a van) from Mohammad Salah, a Palestinian living in Bridgeview, Ill., from someone already arrested for money-running for Hamas, and from the Quranic Literacy Institute (QLI), a Moslem organization based in Oak Lawn, Illinois. An FBI affidavit explained that Salah and QLI were suspected of having laundered money for Hamas: "QLI and QLI-related entities or individuals likely were a source of funds for Salah's Hamas-related expenditures." For example, bank records revealed that QLI's president made out three checks for $6,000 each to Salah on three consecutive days in October, 1991.
Putting all these elements together, Stanley and Joyce Boim, the parents of David, filed a civil suit on May 12, 2000, against all of their son's killers, Salah, QLI, a high-ranking official of Hamas named Mousa Abu Marzook, and "a network of front organizations" in the US whom they identified as Hamas affiliates. These included the United Association for Studies and Research, a think tank in Annandale, Virginia; the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a charity in Richardson, Texas; and the Islamic Association for Palestine, a nonprofit group also in Richardson, plus two of its affiliates.
The plaintiffs' plan to establish the existence only of a financial and communications link between the American organizations and the killers - not that those organizations specifically bought the weapons used to kill David Boim. The defendants deny any connection: Dalell Mohammed of the Holy Land Foundation asserts that HLF "is in the business of helping refugees and people in need. We don't condone any sort of violence as we are a humanitarian organization."
The plaintiffs have two goals. The more modest of them is simply to establish a precedent that any support for a designated terrorist organization makes a person legally liable for that group's actions. This could have a major effect deterring support for such organizations. Nathan Lewin, the celebrated lawyer who is handling the case for the Boims, says that a victory in this case "would put teeth into the anti-terrorism laws that the Clinton administration has so far been loath to apply."
The more ambitious goal is to win a judgment against the named organizations. If David's parents succeed at this, terrorism expert Steven Emerson points out, it would "potentially result in the defendants exposed as agents of terrorism, marginalizing them. Even more important, Hamas raises about one third of its funds in the United States, and this funding would pretty certainly dry up, reducing Hamas's terrorism capabilities."
Defunding QLI and the other groups has precedents and is not a quixotic dream: the Southern Poverty Law Center some years ago won a comparable civil judgment against the Ku Klux Klan, impoverishing that organization, thereby severely reducing its reach and appeal.
But were the Boims to lose on both scores, the defendants will be vindicated, Hamas will have had its American base legally certified, and the anti-terrorism legislation will be shown as hollow.
Much, therefore, hangs on this case in Chicago.
__________
Nov. 11, 2004 update: The Boims have won the case, or at least the first round. Here are extracts on yesterday's decision from the Chicago Tribune's report, "3 Islamic fundraisers held liable in terror death."
In a victory for the parents of a 17-year-old gunned down in a terrorist attack in Israel, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that three Islamic fundraisers, including a Chicago-area man, are legally responsible for his death.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys ruled that the fundraisers are liable for the 1996 slaying of David Boim because they helped finance the militant Palestinian group Hamas. The decision names Muhammad Salah of Bridgeview, the Islamic Association for Palestine, which recently closed its Palos Hills office, and the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.
The decision is the first holding U.S. citizens or organizations liable under a 1990 federal law that allows victims of terrorism to sue for civil damages. In a case in Rhode Island, plaintiffs last year won a multimillion-dollar judgment against Hamas, but the group didn't contest the lawsuit. Keys' ruling means the judge has found Salah and the two groups liable for damages. A jury trial starting Dec. 1 will determine if they have to pay the Boims. That jury also will have to determine whether another defendant, the Quranic Literacy Institute of Oak Lawn, is liable and if it should pay. …
the case got a boost in 2002 from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. In a landmark ruling, the appeals court said the groups could be held liable if the Boims could establish that they "aided and abetted" David Boim's killing. On Wednesday, Keys said the Boims didn't have to show that the defendants knew about the attack on David Boim or did anything specifically to aid the attack. Instead, "the Boims need only show that the defendants were involved in an agreement to accomplish an unlawful act and that the attack that killed David Boim was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy," according to Keys' opinion. Keys ruled that the Boims presented ample evidence that the three defendants knowingly supported Hamas and its terrorist activities. …
In his determination about Holy Land Foundation, which was one of the country's largest Islamic charities, Keys relied heavily on recent federal court rulings in Washington. Those legal actions arose after Holy Land Foundation unsuccessfully challenged the government decision's to freeze its assets after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Evidence in the Washington court case showed that the Holy Land Foundation provided substantial funding to charities in Israel that were fronts or supporters of Hamas, according to Keys. The judge also said the charity frequently focused on supporting the families of suicide bombers. In July, the government indicted the charity, which has ceased to operate, and several of its officers for conspiring to aid Hamas. …
[Stephen] Landes, the attorney for the Boim family, said he intends to seek damages of about $15 million. The defendant with the most assets is believed to be the Holy Land Foundation, with several million dollars in charitable contributions frozen by the government.

"London, Dec 6 , 2004 : Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf said he would welcome Britain's involvement as an intermediary in peace talks with India.
The General said he would raise the issue as he meets British Prime Minister Tony Blair in London today. However, Musharraf accepted that India and Pakistan had agreed to strict bilateral negotiations for 30 years. The Pakistani President was also dismissive of India's withdrawal of troops in Jammu and Kashmir, calling it "a good gesture, and good optics, but only tactical". He said a proper stratagem required a resolution of the dispute itself.Musharraf is visiting Britain at the invitation of Blair, and the two leaders will hold wide-ranging talks on issues like tackling terrorism and strengthening strategic ties. " (Source: NDTV. )________________________________________________

Analysis :Since Pakistani forces were involved in a conflict on Indian Territory, Nehru considered expanding the confrontation into a full-scale counterattack against Pakistan. But Lord Mountbatten persuaded him to go to the UN instead .He convinced Nehru that the UN would promptly direct Pakistan to withdraw the raiders who had invaded Kashmir. So on January 1, 1948, India turned to the UN Security Council. India accused Pakistan of forthright aggression.

The UN Security Council adopted a policy of strict evenhandedness in its treatment of both India and Pakistan .On January 20, 1948, the UN passed a resolution establishing a three-member commission on India and Pakistan UNCIP to travel to Kashmir and determine the facts of what exactly had happened. The resolution said nothing about a Pakistani insurgency or “tribesmen” that appeared in India’s complaint. India had brought what it felt was a clear-cut case of aggression to the UN and come up empty-handed, with the UN’s only response being to form a committee. This was hardly the decisive action Lord Mountbatten had promised.

It turned out that Mountbatten’s suggestion to Nehru that he would get a fair hearing at the UN had been somewhat disingenuous. British foreign secretary Ernest Bevin wrote to PM Clement Attlee that London had to be very careful about siding with India at the UN, given the tensions that had arisen in the Islamic world over Palestine. Against this background, one can see how it would have been difficult for India to get a fair hearing inn the UN Security Council. The British, as well as the Americans, who followed their lead, had greater interests in Pakistan, which was immediately contiguous to the Eurasian landmasses, and could provide strategic bases to the West in the emerging Cold War. These military interests, and not any abstract principles about aggression, would determine their approach to the Indian complaint at the UN.

Four Mistakes of Pandit Nehru on Kashmir which cost dearly for India :The Kashmir problem has become a festering sore, only because of four mistakes committed in the initial stages.

1. After Independence, when the Pakistanis tried to usurp Kashmir and our army began to push them out and may have succeeded, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru at the insistence of Lord Mountbatten, called a ceasefire. Because of that, some of Kashmir remained with Pakistan.

2. The second mistake was that the issue was taken to theUnited Nations, again at the insistence of Mountbatten. Nehru was very influenced by Mountbatten, and the latter himself has written that the partition was of his creation.

3. The third was, even while Gopalaswamy Iyengar was making a strong case in favor of Bharath, Nehru announced a plebiscite, once more heeding the words of Mountbatten.

4. In enacting Article 370 and giving special status to the state as a "temporary measure" Nehru committed the fourth error in expecting that in time, the situation would fade away. It has not faded, but it has become the main obstacle in the full integration of Kashmir with the rest of the country.

After the 2001 census, the population of Kashmir has increased. It is ten lakhs more than that of Jammu. Our govt. has tried to reason with Pakistan. But Pakistan knows it's existence depends upon it's hatred of India. Of course if relations are mended Pakistan will automatically fade away.The only solution for Kashmir is when Pakistan vacates the two-fifth area it has forcibly occupied since 1948. This cannot be achieved militarily because of China's good relations with Pakistan. As far as the Pakistan problem is concerned it is between Pakistan and India . This depends on the acumen of politicians.
It is Britain which insisted India to take the matter to UN and backed off its support , and to put in the words of Dr.Dore Gold , former ambassadore of Israel to UN , in his latest book "The Tower of Babble " , " The UN not only “internationalized” the issue of Kashmir’s fate, which from India’s perspective was an internal matter, it also prolonged the conflict with Pakistan, which lead to at least 2 full scale wars on the Indian Subcontinent. It repeatedly created a false equivalence between those who tried to work within the norm of the UN and those who rejected them. "

December 08, 2004

GLOBAL GUERRILLAS AND TEMPORARY AUTONOMOUS ZONES
Like pirates of the past (particularly those of the 1st century BC and 18th century), global guerrillas operate from geographically dispersed locations. These locations are sanctuaries of convenience on a global scale. Examples include:
Failed and collapsed states. GGs are able to establish mobile operations centers (Sudan and Afghanistan) and generate new sources of funding (opium in Afghanistan and oil "bunkering" in Nigeria) within these vacuums of authority.
Zones of chaotic organic order. Negotiated relationships with tribesmen in Waziristan (Pakistan), have provided security, intelligence, and supplies for GG groups. In Fallujah (Iraq), GGs have used a collapse of state authority and the subsequent rise of organic Islamic order to provide cover for cells.
The Internet. The size and structure of the Internet provides virtual sanctuary. The Internet provides the glue that links groups that operate within the ancient modes of organic order -- religious, tribal, etc. -- that form the backbone of the physical world sanctuary, with the modern world's operational environment. However, the Internet is more than merely a communications medium, it is a place of sanctuary in itself.The TAZGlobal guerrillas do not require extensive logistical structures. Their units are small, fleet, and adaptable. Despite this, they are able to inflict extensive damage by leveraging the power of networks and markets. Most GG activity is accomplished within the confines of "controlled" areas (that's where the targets are), however, much of the long term planning and training occurs within temporary autonomous zones (TAZs) -- areas beyond the control of the global nation-state system. GGs can "manufacture" TAZ sanctuaries as needed from any location that exhibits a vacuum of global order. These places provide staging grounds for offensive operations in "controlled" areas. The elimination of TAZs will be a long-run problem for nation-states. Unfortunately, military solutions can work against progress by creating a TAZ where none existed before (example: Fallujah). Here are some ideas on how to approach the problem:
Rapidly shifting locations. Entrepreneurial guerrillas are quick to take advantage of new opportunities for sanctuary when they arise. A partial solution is to avoid the creation of power vacuums via failed or collapsed states whenever possible (example: Iraq). A failed/collapsed state is worse than a rogue state. Economic and other non-military support structures need to be strengthened to prevent state failure.
Locations that resist interdiction. Remote, hostile territory makes rapid response difficult. Nation-states require significant periods of time to work through the complexities (mostly political) necessary to neutralize these locations.
Diversity. Again the theme of "strength through diversity" is apparent. There isn't any single formula for eliminating TAZs. Each location requires an unique effort

Fallujah is a TAZ. A temporary autonomous zone that is being used by global guerrillas for regional operations. It isn't a central hub of the insurgency, because there isn't any central hub. The insurgency is a decentralized entity composed of many small networks that coordinate their activities through the open source bazaar. A good definition of Fallujah (and other locations like south Wazirastan) is that it is:
A lawless zone that is locally controlled and fiercely independent.What a TAZ provides
A TAZ is not a major source of funding, manpower, or supply for the insurgency. It doesn't power the insurgency at a root level. It is merely a geographic zone that is free of state control -- an organic byproduct of a failed or weak state. Global guerrillas find sanctuary in a TAZ because they fight the same enemy. The state. A TAZ provides:
Basic shelter (housing, etc. that can be bought). Freedom of movement (it is a no-go zone for forces of the state). Open commerce (interconnections with other groups, trading, etc.)Collapsing the TAZ
The current operation to take Fallujah pits US Marines (and their reconstituted Peshmerga and Badr Brigade allies) against local boys, organized by neighborhood, mosque, family, or tribe. Most of the global guerrillas previously operating in the city are already gone. However, some will stay for the fight (as payment for the support provided and/or due to a strong affection for the city's people). The net result will be:
A good fight. The city is being defended by people that are fighting for their homes. This isn't Najaf (which is often cited as the model for Fallujah), where the militia was bused in. Think Grozny lite (to the limited extent that traditional Arab warfare can translate to siege warfare). Little damage to the insurgency. Most of the people and equipment we want to kill or capture is already gone. The US/Iraqi government telegraphed their desire to retake the city months ago. Further, many other locations are available (the US does not have enough troops in country to make a full court press on every TAZ in Iraq). A moral loss. The first target seized by the US military was Fallujah's hospital. The reason: to limit information (or disinformation) on the number of casualties generated by the firepower heavy Marine assault. Despite this action, the media will deliver the moral message. A weak force of local "freedom fighters" has been crushed by a powerful US military. As a result, we will likelly see a Sunni boycott of the elections.

Much worldwide cargo, from raw materials to finished products, travels via containerized shipping. For the shippers, the main concern has always been losses from theft or accident. But shipping containers are as attractive to terrorists as they are to thieves and smugglers. New security measures have therefore proliferated. This report defines a framework for assessing the effects of these measures, reviews the balance of current container security risk-reduction efforts, and lays out directions for further research.
DOWNLOAD COMPLETE REPORT

Musharraf’s ability to meet Washington’s expectations, given the serious countervailing pressures he faces, is open to doubt. As a way of navigating the Scylla of domestic political demands and the Charybdis of American pressure, Musharraf has become a "minimal satisfier," in the words of one expert. Thus, he periodically offers the United States a midlevel or senior al Qaeda militant, while prohibiting the deployment of U.S. troops to Waziristan and ordering generally unconvincing sorties of Pakistani forces into that region. He has little flexibility, since the deployment of government soldiers into the autonomous areas could unite tribal chieftains against him. As these conflicting pressures mount, Pakistan is going to become an increasingly unstable place.Read complete article

The sinking dollar and the soaring US stock market will lead, according to our financial expert, to a sell-off of American government bonds and, as a result, an increase in long-term interest rates.
What is the connection between the price of bonds and interest rates? And how do they affect real-estate and the stock and foreign exchange markets? A government bond is an IOU by the government to honor the debt at a specified future date. They mature after two, five, ten or 30 years. Issued to the public, the bond trades OTC (Over the Counter) on the open bond market, one of the most liquid in the trade with volumes of tens of billions of dollars a day.
The issuer (seller) in the primary market is the government; the secondary (open) market consists of a mixed bag of buyers and sellers - foreign central banks, mortgage companies, investment firms, and the public.
There is a reverse interaction between the bond’s price and the interest it carries: the higher the price, the lower the interest and vice a versa – the lower the bond price, the higher the interest.
Short-term interest rates are fixed by the central bank (the US Federal Reserve - Fed), whose next meeting on December 14 is expected to continue its policy of measured short-term interest rises. The long-term interest rate is governed by the bonds market - in other words, the market determines the price for which it is willing to lend the government money. That becomes the long term interest rate.
Every economic expert in the world has been explaining in recent months that America’s huge budget deficit and trade imbalance (America imports more than it exports) are the structural causes of the dollar’s weakness. The dollar has been sliding progressively for three years and hit new lows in recent months. On December 7, the euro was quoted at $1.3450, raising questions of the American currency’s continuing hegemony as the main reserve currency for national central banks.
In fact, the last round of dollar plunges was caused primarily by central banks diversifying their reserves by trading in some of their dollars for other currencies, mostly euros.
If investors and central banks are selling off US dollars, why don’t they also sell US assets, i.e. government bonds?
Central banks, particularly in Asia - Japan, China, Taiwan, India and Singapore - hold vast foreign exchange reserves in amounts of hundreds of billions of dollars. These reserves are generated partly by those countries’ current account surpluses (in contrast to “spendthrift America”), and partly by their dollar surplus balance, which is deliberately kept high by their central banks buying dollars in the foreign-exchange markets to build a bulwark against their own national currencies growing strong enough to impair their export trade.
Sounds complicated?
The situation of Asia’s central banks is even more so.
For example, the Japanese central bank (BOJ) purchased hundreds of billions of dollars last year to keep the yen weak, exports high and Japan’s economic recovery moving forward.
But this intervention proved ineffectual. Tuesday morning, December 7, the Japanese yen traded at around 102.50 per 1 US. dollar compared with 110-115 levels when the BOJ stepped in. Most of those dollars were routed into long-term American government bonds which are as near as possible to being defined as a risk-free asset: AAA in the risk rating
On December 7, the Wall Street Journal wrote that the US government’s triple A bond rating is being questioned by some investors because of America’s budget and trade deficits and the plummeting dollar. What is happening, therefore, is that Asian central banks, by purchasing dollars to hold down their own currencies, are helping to finance America’s huge debt by buying American indebtedness – bonds.
But miracles don't last forever…
Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, talking last month with unusual bluntness about the state of the dollar, remarked: "… considering the size of America’s trade deficit, devaluation in the dollar could occur at some point."
Devaluation of the dollar may happen by selling off dollar assets like… American bonds.
Selling US assets=American bonds held by Asian central banks - or even a partial sell-off – could sharply depress the bond price and raise long-term interest rates.
Those banks would register a loss on their American bond holdings – which would prompt them to throw more US bonds onto the market.
Sounds like catch 22, or in market language: Pass the hot potato on to someone else….
In recent months, the manager of American PIMCO, one of the world’s biggest bond trading companies, has been recommending a reduction in holdings in the bond market.
The anomaly between currency markets (dollar down), and bond markets (fairly level) cannot last long.
The Chinese Factor.
Unlike most of Asia - and the rest of the world, China pegs its currency the yuan to the US dollar, to the annoyance of America, which is calling for a yuan revaluation. Since China is the biggest exporter to America and therefore the prime cause of America’s escalating trade deficit, the Bush government hopes for a stronger yuan to help cut that deficit.
What impact would a price drop of US government bonds have?
The effect of a sharp sell-off of US bonds on world stock-markets, real-estate and currency trading would be powerful and could even in some circumstances trigger world crises:
Stock markets respond negatively to rising interest rates because they make holding onto stocks less attractive to investors. In extreme cases, a sudden massive decline in the price of bonds (producing a surge in interest rates) could shock stock markets enough for a crash.
Real estate is influenced by the mortgage interest rate which derives directly from long-term interest rates in the capital markets. A rally in long-term interest rates would push mortgage rates up. With most real estate markets already at the end of a rally cycle, a further boost could cause a world real estate market collapse. (High mortgage rates would hit real estate sales and be extremely painful to holders of mortgages with floating interest rates.)
Mortgage companies are themselves active bond market players. A sharp bond sell-off would force them sell bonds, so adding fuel to the fire.
Currency markets like all markets, dislike uncertainty. An acute increase in US long term interest rates may temporarily stimulate a rally in dollar value. But a substantial crash of American bonds will in the long run weaken the dollar. The effect on these markets will be higher volatility.
World imbalance: Since the US government bond is a popular and staple asset held by most central banks and corporate and private portfolios - large and small, a steep sell-off may spawn a world financial crisis.
What can save the bond market from falling?
1. A reduction of the US current account deficit and/or revaluation of the Chinese currency could ease the pressure on the bond market.
2. If there were to be coordinated intervention in the currency markets to soak up dollars - including by the Fed, some control might be exerted to level out the diving dollar and bonds – at least temporarily.
3. Predictions that world interest rates will not go up in the next few years – meaning inflation is not a tangible threat, despite climbing oil and commodity prices – could encourage long-term bond purchases. (This scenario is the least likely of the three)

GIG HARBOR, WASH. - A thought experiment: Let's pretend America's intelligence problems have beenfixed. While we wait for the next skirmishes in Washington's endless civi lwar among the officialtribes who run our national intelligence apparatus, let's imagine we have what's been promised. Allthe dots are being connected, all the terrorists are being detected - before they strike.To conduct this improved scan of the world, twice as many spies as we have now are out snooping, animmense umbrella of our satellites look at and listen in to every cranny ofthe globe, and here at home a new super chief enforces peace among the clans who staff America's gargantuan collection and analysis machine. Read more

Intelli-Briefs sources in Tamil Nadu and Kanchi Mutt learnt some facts which local media people should have got . But, we are surprised that the media has not come out with this conspiracy angle while they merrily publish allegations and ridiculous stories citing unnamed sources.

Indisputable facts which we came across :

1. Jaya gave over 100 cr of MGR's money to the mutt, which was accepted as any other donation is, and invested where the mutt pleased.

2. Child's trust and Tamil Nadu hospitals were "acquired" by the mutt (or the mutt's devotees - mostly Bombay based businessmen, at the nod of the Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal), and it is a known fact that Jaya and her cronies were openly intent on acquiring those properties. The owners of these properties were able to dispose off them to the mutt devotees only because BJP (Advani) was at the centre, and Jaya didn't (at that point) dare touch people whom he had connections with. As a simple business deal, she was allegedly willing to pay 50% what the Mutt payed. So, go figure who would've gotten the deal in a capitalistic economy.

3. Mr.Panicker (her personal philosopher) told Jaya to do Kumbabishekam for various temples in the state and gave various times to do it at. All of these dates were scheduled per *her* horoscope, keeping *her* ambitions in mind, and not per traditional lines of thought which take various agamic issues including "loka kshemam" into consideration.

How they played out:In vaishnava temples (or at least in their administration), for whatever reason, the agamic rules don't seem to be the prevailing force by which things are done... (or Jaya forced their hand.. one never really knows).. and the dates were all accepted.For the rest of the temples, Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal is the acknowledged head and no priest would do a kumbabishekam without his approval... and he didn't give his approval apparently for some of the dates since they just didn't cut it..This was percieved as a huge challenge to Jaya.

The issue of the acquisitions also started to irk her since it was perceived as a direct assault on her power structure. And, to force the hand, she lost the elections grandly. So, within hours, backdoor negotiations with Congress began where it was apparently conveyed to her that the madam in Delhi thought that the TN govt was very "friendly" to communal forces (read hindus), and that they wouldn't really land up in bed with her if she didn't prove otherwise.

So, Jaya is supposed to have recanted the best thing she has ever done, namely, abolition of conversion in TN, and went haywire (not really with the congress in mind) with removing other good deeds she had done including the disciplining of the state employees for their statewide strike, etc.

And to make matters worse, she supposedly met Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal and asked him to return the 100cr she had "donated" because she needed them to fight new elections. In his natural style, he has apparently commented that he deemed the money to have been donated like all others, and that they were invested wisely. He also is said to have stated something to the effect of "onakku 100 kodi sambadhikaradhu enna kashtama. Idha en kekara?" [Why do you ask for this money? Is making 100 crores difficult for you?]She, according to bystanders, is supposed to have left the room without a namaskaram and saying something to the effect of "enakku 100 kodi sambadhikavum teriyum, adhukku mela enna pannanum ennum teriyum". [I know to make 100 crores and I also know to do things beyond that]

That is the last meeting... and then 15 days to a month later, the arrest happened.

December 07, 2004

A number of Islamist forums (e.g. www.qal3ah.info, www.yaislah.org) have posted the latest declaration of al-Qaeda, which claims responsibility for the December 6 attack on the American Consulate in Jedda.
The Declaration is notable for its claim that two Americans were among the casualties of the operation. It also maintains that al-Qaeda will shortly supply a recording of the storming of the Consulate, and the last testaments of the martyrs.Great significance among Islamist forums is being paid to the attack, since it is being used to affirm that al-Qaeda, despite denials from the Saudi government, is maintaining its capability in the kingdom.
The complete translation is provided below.

Declaration on the Operation Against the American Consulate in Jeddah (The "Fallujah Raid")
Praise be to God, the Lord Of The Worlds, and a prayer and a greeting to the most noble of the Prophets and Messengers.

Almighty God said: "Lo! Those who disbelieve spend their wealth in order that they may debar (men) from the way of Allah. They will spend it, then it will become an anguish for them, then they will be conquered. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto hell." [Qur'an, VIII, 36]
In this time where the world's nations have pounced upon the Muslims and when the Crusader infidel alliance, America, Israel and its henchmen, have marched forth against the Muslims, God brought forth a mujahid group to fight in His path, one that takes no heed of those who criticize, a group that has not ceased its operations against America and its Crusading allies since September 11th.
Among these operations the raid on the Crusader bases in Riyadh and al- Khobar were carried out in compliance with the recommendation of the Prophet, (God bless him and grant him peace) and as a continuation of the war with America and its agents. As a result of these more than 300 Crusaders have fallen.
And today, Monday 24 Shawwal 1425, your brothers in the Martyr Abu Anas al-Shami Squadron undertook the blessed ‘Fallujah Raid', stormed one of the Crusader fortresses in the Arabian Peninsula and penetrated the stronghold of the American Consulate in Jeddah, through which the Land of the Two Shrines is ruled, the affairs of the Pilgrimage and the pilgrims are decided, and from which spies and cowards are disseminated.
After several hours your brothers affected their withdrawal from the consulate building and retired to a safe place. During the operation two of the heroic brothers (whom God receive unto Him) who were covering the withdrawal operation achieved martyrdom, and three other brothers were wounded and have undergone treatment. Your brothers were able to kill nine of the agents in the Consulate including two American thugs, they also killed seven of the soldiers allied to the tyrant, and wounded tens of others. Some of the consulate's offices were destroyed and burnt. Bugging and communications devices were looted along with light weaponry, sophisticated electronic devices and some important documents.
God permitting, we will shortly be publishing details of this blessed raid and its results, and we will make a recording of the storming operation and the last testaments of the martyrs. This operation is one of a number undertaken by the Organization of al-Qaeda in the War against the Crusaders and Jews, and is part of the campaign to expel the polytheists from the Arabian Peninsula.

Know then that the Mujahideen are forging ahead with confidence on their way. They are not enfeebled by what they suffer in God's path and are not cast down. Nay, by the Grace of God and His granting of success, they remain patient, and with God's aid to victory they are not harmed by those who abandon them or oppose them.
Our final invocation is ‘Praise be to God the Lord of the Worlds.'
The Organization of Qaeda [the Base] of Jihad in the Arabian Peninsula

The authors delve into the Quran and hadith to articulate a means to counter Islamic militancy ideologically, drawing insights from these and other classical Islamic texts. In so doing, they expose contradictions and alternative approaches in the core principles that groups like al-Qaeda espouse, and find that scripture actually discredits al-Qaeda and other jihadist organizations' tactics

The global war on terror (GWOT) and the battles with specific Islamist groups is, to some degree, a war of ideas. With a better understanding of Islamic concepts of war, peace, and Muslim relations with non-Muslims, those fighting the GWOT may gain support and increase their efficacy. The authors explain the principles of jihad and war and their conduct as found in key Islamic texts, the controversies that have emereged from the Quranic verses of war and peace, and the conflict between liberal or moderate Islamic voices and the extremists on matters such as the definition of combatants, treatment of hostages, and suicide attacks.

Title:
U.S. – India Security Ties: Taking Stock
Sponsors:Indiana University and the Army War College
When:April 24-25, 2005
Location:Bloomington, IN
Details:This event brings together scholars, decision-makers and opinion leaders to take stock of the evolution of Indo-U.S. security ties since the end of the cold war.
RSVP:Required
Admission:By Invitation Only
Point of Contact:andrew.scobell@carlisle.army.milHost's Website:Website unavailable for this conference.
Online Registration:No
Registration Form:Registration Forms Unavailable

This should be a wake up call to all Indians , all these years BJP and it's alies were shouting about LEFTIST's anti-national aganda , now NSUI ( Congress Party's Students wing) is convinced about it .At JNUSU meet, Left shows 'anti-national' bias

For the Left outfits the Communist camaraderie comes before the interest of the nation. If a resolution, which was defeated in the students' council of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, is anything to go by -- the Communists of the world must unite. Unbelievable it may sound, at the first council meeting of JNU Students Union (JNUSU), the Left outfits voted against a resolution condemning China for repeatedly showing Arunachal Pradesh as not part of India.Zinniah and Manoj, councilors of the National Students Union of India (NSUI), student wing of the Congress, had brought the resolution.

The resolution was defeated by 11 votes, as most of the councilors from Left outfits, namely, Students Federation of India (SFI) and All India Students Federation (AISF) voted against the resolution.The one line resolution reads: "The council condemns the Republic China for continuing to show Arunachal Pradesh as part of its territory." In all, the council discussed 33 items on agenda. The resolutionon Arunachal Pradesh was the eighth item on the list. "Instead of taking a strong note of China's inconsistent policy towards Arunachal Pradesh, SFI and AISF showed the softness as if Arunachal Pradesh is not India's part," Madhumita Chakraborty, JNU unit NSUI president, said."SFI, AISF and AISA representatives voted against the motion, thereby verifying that they actually support the Chinese claim of Arunachal Pradesh being a part of Chinese territory.

Their voting against the motion is a betrayal of the very Constitution of our country and has exposed the anti-national character of the Left," she added.SFI is the student wing of Communist Party of India (Marxist), a major constituent of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), AISF of Communist Party of India (CPI), another Left constituent of the UPA, while All India Students Association (AISA) is the student outfit of CPI-Marxist and Leninst. AISA's Mona Das heads the JNUSU."Arunachal Pradesh is very much a part of Indianterritory, and the people of Arunachal Pradesh have affirmed the pan-Indian character of the Congress by giving it a positive mandate in the recently held assembly elections in the state, rejecting all separatist and isolationist forces," Ms Madhumita Chakraborty added.

Taking strong note of the SFI-AISF-AISA's stand on Arunachal Pradesh, NSUI president said: "People know the Left's history of betrayals. NSUI will not tolerate even an inch of Indian land being claimed by our neighbouring countries, while striving all the time for better relations with them, a fact highlighted by Dr Manmohan Singh's recent participation in the ASEAN summit.""Who can forget the stand of the Left in the 1962 war with China, when they openly supported the Chinese aggression by stating that the war was over a piece of land that India claims to be India's and China claims to be China's. Left outfits owe an explanation to the whole nation for such a blatant anti-national stand," Ms Chakraborty added.TheLeft resolution, which was passed by majority, stated: "The council urges the governments of India and People's Republic of China to speed up the talks between the two countries on various issues including the border talks. This council believes that both the countries need to respect the sovereignty and integrity of each other and all kinds of xenophobic opinion on both sides need to be isolated."

Some days ago, Muslim organisations in Andhra Pradesh called for a bandh on December 6 to mark the 12th anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The Pioneer quoted Maulana Abdul Raheem Qureshi, Secretary of the Muslim United Front, one of the organisations that has given the bandh call, as saying "the wound caused by the Babri Masjid's demolition is still festering". Maulana Qureshi, who is also Secretary of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, goes on to say that the demolition of the structure at Ayodhya "is the blackest incident in the history of the country" and that "it will not be forgotten till justice is done and the rule of law is established".Qureshi's hyperbole compels me to undertake a painful journey into the past and to revisit some of the horrendous assaults on Hindu places of worship by Muslim invaders and kings.

I also wish to examine whether, in the face of incontrovertible historical facts, the fall of the structure at Ayodhya 12 years ago is worthy of being classified as "the blackest incident" in the history of Bharat.Hindus regard the disputed site in Ayodhya as the birth place of Lord Ram. They also contend that Mir Baqi, Babur's General, destroyed a temple that stood at the site and built the Babri Masjid. Last year, the Archaeological Survey of India carried out excavations at the site on orders of the court. Archaeologists have found that the masjid had been built on the walls of a huge temple. The matter is currently before the Allahabad High Court.

For the Hindus, this is a matter of faith. A masjid built by an invader cannot possibly be at par with a temple at what is regarded as the birth place of Ram.Many Muslim leaders contend that the issue must be resolved by the courts. In other words, court orders must supercede faith even if the issue at hand is the birth place of Ram. But do Muslims take this view at all times? If so, why did they force the Indian state to upturn a court verdict in the Shah Bano Case on a mundane issue of payment of maintenance for a divorced wife on the ground that it was a matter of faith? Whatever be the outcome of this dispute, for the Hindus the desecration of Ram Janmabhoomi is a "wound" that is festering for centuries. But this is not the only one. There are many more: Kashi, Mathura et al.Take the case of Kashi. Hindus believe that a dip in the Ganga at Kashi followed by prayers at the Vishwanath temple is a must for salvation. This pilgrimage is the Hindu equivalent of the Haj performed by Muslims.

That is probably why Aurangzeb demolished the temple and built a mosque that covered much of the temple's site. A new temple was built after Aurangzeb's reign but even today the Shiv Mandir at what is certainly the holiest city for the Hindus is enveloped by a masjid. Therefore, is not Aurangzeb's desecration of the Kashi temple "the blackest incident in the history of the country"?Let us now look at Mathura, the birthplace of Lord Krishna. Prafull Goradia, who has made a signal contribution to the task of ridding Indian history of the fraudulent and criminal misinterpretations introduced by dishonest, pseudo-secular scholars, quotes FS Growse, a British officer, in The Saffron Book. Grouse had this to say in A District Memoir: "Its (Mathura's) most famous temple was destroyed, as already mentioned in 1669, the eleventh year of the reign of the iconoclastic Aurangzeb. The mosque erected on its ruins is a building of little architectural value." Muslims took such pride in the desecration of the birthplace of Lord Krishna that Aurangzeb's chronicler says with glee in Maasir-e-Alamgiri: "The idols, large and small alike, all adorned with costly jewels, were carried away from the heathen shrine and taken to Agra, where they were buried under the steps of Nawab Kudsia Begum's mosque, so that people might trample upon them for ever."Nobody has done greater damage to the Hindu psyche than Mahmud Ghazni who repeatedly plundered the most sacred shrines of Hindus including the temple of Somnath.

His spurious logic for this madness is explained by Prof. Mohammad Nazim from The Life and Times of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna. Goradia quotes him: "The destruction of the temple of Somnath was looked upon as the crowning glory of Islam over idolatry and Sultan Mahmud as the champion of the faith, received the applause of all the Muslim world. Shykh Faridu'd Din Attar said that the Sultan preferred to be an idol breaker rather than an idol seller. While rejecting the offer of the Hindus to ransom the idol of Somnath with its weight in gold, Mahmud is supposed to have said, `I am afraid of the day of judgement when all the idolaters are brought into the presence of Allah.' The temple was rebuilt but destroyed many times thereafter in the 13th, 14th and 15centuries by Muslim invaders and rulers including Aurangzeb."The restoration of the Somnath temple was done peacefully soon after independence because Sardar Vallabhai Patel, KM Munshi and some others were determined to treat this "festering wound". But this was no easy task because they had to battle against Nehru's pusillanimity and pseudo-secular preoccupations. Despite Nehru's objections, Sardar Patel went ahead with the restoration plan in 1950. KM Munshi recorded his feelings about the repeated assaults on this temple in his book, Somanatha: "An ancient race subconsciously felt that it was Somanatha which connected it with the past and the present; it was the external symbol of its faith in itself and its future. As often as the shrine was destroyed, the urge to restore it sprang up more vividly in the heart. That is why for a thousand years Mahmud's destruction of the shrine has been burnt into the collective sub-conscious of the race as an unforgettable national disaster."In light of these facts, what shall we attribute Mr Qureshi's arguments to? Arrogance or Insensitivity? So, Mr Qureshi, Babri Masjid is not the only "festering wound".

There are thousands of them all along the length and breadth of Bharat. Should the Hindus begin the ritual of observing anniversaries of the vandalisation and destruction of their temples, they would have ten such terrible reminders on every day of the year. What if the Hindus take a cue from you and say the dark deeds of the past will not be forgotten "till justice is done"?Leaders of the Muslim community like Mr Qureshi should not get carried away by the prevailing pseudo-secular environment or by the shrill anti-Hindu utterances of a few godless analysts and politicians with Hindu names like Sitaram or Bardhan. Most of them are self-proclaimed atheists, agnostics and rationalists who probably have the best of intentions when they champion the cause of religious minorities. But, they are not practicing, temple-going Hindus.

They are not the ones who go for a dip in the Ganga at Varanasi in search of "moksha". Millions of Hindus who undertake these pilgrimages to Varanasi, Mathura and Ayodhya every year are assailed by the physical evidence that exists even today of the heartless and cruel assaults that were made over the last 1000 years on their most revered places of worship. Are the Muslims willing to treat these "festering wounds"?It is therefore imperative for those who believe in peaceful coexistence of citizens of all faiths and in preserving the secular, democratic character of the Indian state to desist from utterances that would stir the Hindu Samaj out of its collective amnesia and induce a kind of total recall. Only then can we preserve our composite culture and the Constitution, which is the most precious gift that the nation's founding fathers have given us.http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit3%2Etxt&counter_img=3

December 06, 2004

The Department of Homeland Security has awarded the largest ever law enforcement contract for pistols to Heckler & Koch Defense Inc. to make tens of thousands of small arms for immigration and customs enforcement personnel.
The multi-year contract has a potential value of $26.2 million. The maximum number of pistols being purchased hovers at 65,000, making it the single largest handgun procurement in the history of U.S. law enforcement. Three models of firearms were selected, chosen in three calibers, from a pool of 46 weapons from different companies vying for the contract. The company said that more than 3 million rounds were fired during the testing of the weapons.
“The testing protocol not only included one of the most rigorous battery of reliability, environmental, accuracy and durability tests a handgun has ever been subjected to,” mentioned Wayne Weber, the company's defense federal operations manager. It also featured the “most powerful selection of cartridges within each of three calibers.” Those calibers are 9x19 mm, .40 cal. Smith and Wesson, and .357 mm SIG.
H&K has long sought the border enforcement market. In 2000, the company modified a trigger system solely for U.S. immigration specifications. The system uses the rearward movement of the slide to pre-cock an internal separate cocking piece within the hammer. The hammer returns forward with the slide after loading or firing, yet the internal cocking piece stays raised. Once the trigger is pulled, the hammer is driven forward by the cocking piece to fire the pistol. The amount of force of the hammer can be set to the user's preference.
The trigger system was made for proficient shooting, and quick follow-up shots, by those with small hands or limited hand strength, according to H&K company statements.
H&K has had a good year for gun sales. Earlier this year the company won a contract to equip the federal flight deck officer program for the Transportation Security Agency. This year, the arms manufacturers began construction of a new plant in Columbus, Ga., to keep up with new orders.

Rising stars in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are receiving comprehensive instruction in the military and political ramifications of global terrorism at the NATO Defense College in Rome.
This training, however, does not mean that European nations would agree to conduct combat operations in the Middle East. European members traditionally have resisted overt military action unless the threat is on their very doorstep, college officials said.
Within the treaty organization, they noted, there is considerable disagreement over the definition of terrorism and obvious disapproval of the United States' “SWAT team” approach to combating this threat.
They also expressed concern over the long-term prospects of NATO, which has floundered since the end of the Cold War, adding that the increasing friction between the United States, France and Germany has contributed to this growing uncertainty.
Economic and political competition, especially in the absence of the formidable pressure once exerted by the now defunct Soviet Union, is contributing to this malaise, they added.
U.S. Air Force Col. Peter Faber, a senior member of the college faculty, pointed to the recent agreement of the alliance's 26 members to help train Iraqi forces and provide security troops in Afghanistan. In a recent interview, he noted that this action falls short of providing a force to actually confront and defeat terrorists.
Also sounding an optimistic note is the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, R. Nicholas Burns, who recently wrote in the International Herald Tribune:
“Some have asked whether an alliance established to safeguard the security of Europe and North America should have any role in Iraq, a country that lies well beyond Europe's borders. The simple answer is that if NATO is to remain the world's most effective military and political alliance, it must adapt its fundamental strategy to the realities of the post-September 11 world. This means that NATO must be present on the front lines of terrorism.”
Faber, meanwhile, who authored a paper on NATO's role in countering Middle Eastern terrorism, offered a sobering assessment of both the potential capabilities and intentions of transnational terrorists particularly with reference to nuclear weapons.
“In the hands of martyrology-obsessed shadow warriors, weapons of mass destruction are not weapons of last resort: They are actually weapons of first resort. They are weapons of choice, and today's shadow warriors will most likely acquire them all, either by theft, illicit purchase, and/or voluntary transfer.
“Intercepted al Qaeda messages promise a ‘Hiroshima in America.' With 345 research reactors in 58 nations that presently contain 20 metric tons of highly enriched uranium, the possibility of terrorists acquiring the core elements of a nuclear weapon remain uncomfortably high,” he added.
This threat, as well as repeated attacks by terrorists around the world, has not generated a consensus for action. Faber pointed to the controversy that now surrounds the NATO response force. For the alliance to achieve a coherent policy, member nations have considerable work to do.
“The reality is that while Europe and America will from time to time have serious disagreement, we are bound by a shared set of core values and common interests that will lead us to agree more than we disagree on the major regional and global challenges ahead. Reasserting the importance of trans-Atlantic security should be a priority for 2005,” Ambassador Burns observed:
NATO sources, however, predicted that a coalition of the magnitude that was assembled during the first Gulf War is not about to materialize.
http://nationaldefense.ndia.org/issues/2004/Dec/NATOStruggling.htm

Iran and India failed to finalise a deal for India to buy five million tonnes a year of liquefied natural gas (LNG), despite a new round of ministerial talks, Irans Oil Minister said on Monday. Zanganeh told reporters that price remained the main sticking point, but added other "key issues" also needed to be ironed out. "LNG and gas talks are of a different nature from oil deals. They need long discussions to move forward. There are steps back and forward in this process," Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh told reporters on the sidelines of an oil and gas industry conference in Tehran.

Iran will be the world’s number one producer of petrochemical products by 2025

Netiran, Dec. 6th, 2004, Netiran economy deskWord Count : 507

Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh noted that share of Middle East from oil and gas investments have been less than other oil-rich regions of the world.He told the ninth international conference of the Institute for International Energy Studies that low cost of oil prospecting and production in Middle East can relatively justify low investment in the sector, but there is a wide gap between energy investments in Middle East and other parts of the world.

The minister noted that 90-100 billion dollars has been invested in upstream oil industry in the world since the early years of 1990s.“Limited production and refining capacities, marine transport capacity as well as political developments, especially in Middle East, are major reasons for short-term increase in global oil price,” he noted.Zanganeh said basic market factors are major reasons behind long-term oil price hike.“Due to devaluation of dollars against other international currencies, and the price gap between WTI and Brent, on the one hand, and OPEC benchmark price, on the other hand, price of OPEC crude has been kept within the set range except for recent months.

Referring to high energy consumption in China and India, the minister noted that big energy consumers are trying to lower their vulnerability and boost energy supply security through diversifying energy carriers, to prevent total dependence on oil and gas resources of Middle East and Persian Gulf regions.

He emphasized that major oil consuming countries must continue to cooperate with major oil producers and assure security of countries having rich oil resources.Zanganeh said investment in Middle Eastern oil and gas reserves is quite profitable, adding, “Based on projections, supplying needed global oil during the upcoming 30 years will require investment in oil producing countries of the Middle East about double the figure realized for 1990s.”Oil minister stressed the need for continued cooperation between national oil companies and international oil majors, saying, “Cooperation between such companies does not contravene the need for direct cooperation of national oil companies with creditable oil service companies and first-rate contractors at regional and international levels.”He said Iran seeks an effective role in supplying global energy and to attain that goal, needed improvements should be made to major oil and gas industry companies and suitable grounds should be provided for investments in the industry.

“Based on current plans, Iran will be the world’s number one producer of petrochemical products by 2025, the second crude oil producer within OPEC and the world’s third gas producing country,” he noted.The minister stated that since Iran enjoys the world’s second biggest gas reserves, it cannot remain indifferent toward expanding gas exports and apart from exporting gas to Turkey, the country seeks to export its natural gas to India via a pipeline which is to pass through Pakistan and further extend its gas export pipeline to Europe in the west.“At the same time, the Iranian oil industry is giving priority to LNG and GTL production projects,” he said.

Sirous Nasseri, a senior member of Iran’s nuclear negotiating team with the Europeans, says neither the United States nor the Europeans favor Iran’s enrichment of uranium. He says they want to have Iran halt its programs indefinitely. Nasseri says the Europeans are torn between the United States and the Islamic Republic. Read more

Advances in information gathering and sharing can improve military awareness and collaboration, but the effects of new technologies on military decisionmaking still need to be assessed.

New concepts such as network-centric operations and distributed and decentralised command and control have been suggested as technologically enabled replacements for platform-centric operations and for centralised command and control in military operations. But as attractive as these innovations may seem, they must be tested before adoption. This report assesses the effects of collaboration across alternative information network structures in carrying out a time-critical task, identifies the benefits and costs of local collaboration, and looks at how ‘information overload’ affects a system. Read Complete Report

In May 2002, at a workshop organised by the Swedish Minister of Foreign
Affairs, with the support of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the
European Commission, RAND Europe gave a presentation on the reliability of
technical systems. The safety and security of the maritime system, with
a focus on container security, was touched upon in this presentation.
It triggered awareness with respect to the vulnerability of the global
container shipping system. Based on this awareness, RAND Europe has
co-operated with the JRC to take the matter to the next level and increase
awareness throughout the container supply chain, as well as within the
European legislative bodies. This effort resulted in organising
SeaCurity, a stakeholder consultation – held 28-30 October 2002 – regarding
the security of container commerce.

During this three-day event in Ispra, Italy, presentations were given
in two categories: threats and solutions. In the first category –
Threats – Jack Riley and Peter Chalk (RAND) presented papers respectively on
"Securing Ocean Commerce: A US Perspective" and "Threats to the
Maritime Environment: Piracy and Terrorism". In the second category –
Solutions – Jose Perdigao (EU-JRC) presented a paper on the Contraffic system,
while Adnan Rahman (RAND Europe) gave the TRI MEX presentation. The
remainder of the consultation consisted of group discussions fed by the
presentations.

A RAND Europe report, Seacurity: A Stakeholder Consultation On
Improving The Security Of The Global Sea-Container Shipping System, follows the
broad outline of the consultation. Beginning with issues that were
raised regarding threats to maritime and – more specifically – to container
commerce, the workshop then discussed the issues and possible solutions
that these raised. The report concludes with a number of
recommendations and references.

The purpose of this document is to raise awareness concerning the
current status of maritime security and its vulnerability to terrorism. The
main obstacles in achieving a less vulnerable maritime system are
identified. Beginning with issues regarding threats to maritime and—more
specifically—to container commerce, the report discusses the issues and
possible solutions that these issues raise. The report concludes with a
number of recommendations and references. Reviewers
Comments http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1695/MR1695.pdf

December 05, 2004

Ambassador Dore Gold is President of the Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs http://www.jcpa.org/dgold.htm. He was the eleventh Permanent
Representative of Israel to the United Nations (1997-1999). Previously he
served as Foreign Policy Advisor to the former Prime Minister of Israel,
Benjamin Netanyahu , Excerpts from his latest book , where he charged
UN for internationalizing KASHMIR ISSUE . and loop hole of Article 2 of
UN Charter . http://www.jcpa.org/tower-of-babble.htm

The UN crated a kind of false symmetry between the fundamental
grievances of each side and placed them on the same moral plane. Indian
government ultimately rejected the UN’s latest intervention, arguing that
resolution 726 made India look a “co-accused” with Pakistan.

India had brought what it felt was a clear-cut case of aggression to
the UN and come up empty-handed, with the UN’s only response being to
form a committee. This was hardly the decisive action Lord Mountbatten
had promised.

The British, as well as the Americans, who followed their lead, had
greater interests in Pakistan, which was immediately contiguous to the
Eurasian landmasses, and could provide strategic bases to the West in
the emerging Cold War. These military interests, and not any abstract
principles about aggression, would determine their approach to the Indian
complaint at the UN.

Tower of Babble

The moral clarity of the 1945 UN was becoming obfuscated; standards for
distinguishing right from wrong could not be so easily applied in the
new political universe that was forming, in which aggression could be
excused and morality judged in relative terms.

Since Pakistani forces were involved in a conflict on Indian Territory,
Nehru considered expanding the confrontation into a full-scale
counterattack against Pakistan. But Lord Mountbatten persuaded him to go to the
UN instead .He convinced Nehru that the UN would promptly direct
Pakistan to withdraw the raiders who had invaded Kashmir. So on January 1,
1948, India turned to the UN Security Council.

India accused Pakistan of forthright aggression. Further damning was
the Indian claim that many of 19,000 “invaders” who had entered Kashmir
were Pathan tribesmen from NWFP, near the Afghan border, who had been
transported across all of the Pakistan in order to reach Kashmiri
territory. The Indians insisted that the Security Council call on Pakistan to
stop these attacks, warning that the situation in Kashmir was a “threat
to International peace and security with which it is pregnant if it is
not solved immediately”.

Press reports at the time supported India’s charge. For example, the
Time of London wrote on January 13, 1948, “That Pakistan is unofficially
involved in aiding the raiders is certain. Their correspondent has
first hand evidence that arms, ammunition and supplies are being made
available to the Azad Kashmir forces. A few Pakistani officers also helping
direct their operations “

Pakistan countered the Indian Charges at the UN and flatly denied that
it has provided any assistance to the tribesmen who had invaded
Kashmir. and Pakistani foreign Minister questioned the validity of Kashmir’s
accession to India , though India’s representative had promised the
security Council that the Kashmiri people would have a plebiscite to
ratify the accession .

The UN Security Council adopted a policy of strict evenhandedness in
its treatment of both India and Pakistan .On January 20, 1948, the UN
passed a resolution establishing a three-member commission on India and
Pakistan UNCIP to travel to Kashmir and determine the facts of what
exactly had happened. The resolution said nothing about a Pakistani
insurgency or “tribesmen” that appeared in India’s complaint. India had
brought what it felt was a clear-cut case of aggression to the UN and come up
empty-handed, with the UN’s only response being to form a committee.
This was hardly the decisive action Lord Mountbatten had promised.

At the UN, Indian officials felt, Pakistan “ had succeeded, with the
support of the British and American members, in diverting the attention
from that complaint [of Pakistani aggression] to the problem of the
dispute between India and Pakistan over the question of Jammu and Kashmir.
As a result, “ Pakistan’s aggression was pushed into background.”
Sardar Patel, the Indian Official responsible for the States Ministry,
concluded that by referring the Kashmir issue to the UN, India had
unwittingly prolonged the dispute and obscured the merits of its case. Indeed,
the Conflict appeared to be escalating after the UN’s first engagement.
In short, for India, going to the UN was a mistake.

What went wrong for India at the UN Security Council? Didn’t the
Indians have an Open-and –shut case of Pakistani aggression against their
territory? It turned out that Mountbatten’s suggestion to Nehru that he
would get a fair hearing at the UN had been somewhat disingenuous.
British foreign secretary Ernest Bevin wrote to PM Clement Attlee that London
had to be very careful about siding with India at the UN, given the
tensions that had arisen in the Islamic world over Palestine. Against this
background, one can see how it would have been difficult for India to
get a fair hearing inn the UN Security Council. The British, as well as
the Americans, who followed their lead, had greater interests in
Pakistan, which was immediately contiguous to the Eurasian landmasses, and
could provide strategic bases to the West in the emerging Cold War. These
military interests, and not any abstract principles about aggression,
would determine their approach to the Indian complaint at the UN.

On April 21, 1948, the UN Security Council adopted another resolution
on Kashmir, this one expanding UNCIP’s membership to five states and
stating that “tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident
there “ needed to withdraw from Kashmir. With resolution 726 , it looked
as though the UN was slowly beginning to acknowledge aggression . But
the resolution did not suggest strong and immediate steps to remedy what
had occurred, and it also called on India to reduce its forces in
Kashmir “to minimum strength required “ for maintaining Law and order.
Moreover, it very carefully balanced its call for Pakistan to withdraw
insurgents with a call for India to hold a plebiscite on Kashmir. It was as
though both states were equally fault: Pakistan for promoting an
insurgency in Kashmir, and India for delaying the plebiscite that infact, had
originally proposed.

The UN crated a kind of false symmetry between the fundamental
grievances of each side and placed them on the same moral plane. Indian
government ultimately rejected the UN’s latest intervention, arguing that
resolution 726 made India look a “co-accused” with Pakistan.

When UNCIP prepared its first report, it finally recognized Pakistan’s
direct involvement in Kashmir. Despite that UN still was not willing to
determine that aggression had occurred and to take measures
accordingly. Rather being punished by the UN for its aggression, Pakistan was
deriving distinct territorial and strategic advantages.

The Legacy of early failure:

The UN’s failure to deal with conflicts in Israel and Kashmir had a
profound impact. These tests came almost immediately after the
organization’s formation, and by failing to take firm stand against
well-documented cases of aggression; the UN betrayed the vision of its founding
fathers. In each case it was not difficult to establish that a country had
been the victim of armed attack.

The natural tendency of UN diplomats was to accept the arguments of
warring parties equally, rather than penalizing the aggressor, rewarding
the defender; and thereby deterring armed attacks in future. It is no
wonder that India eventually regretted that it had turned to the UN in
the first place. The UN not only “internationalized” the issue of
Kashmir’s fate, which from India’s perspective was an internal matter, it
also prolonged the conflict with Pakistan, which lead to at least 2 full
scale wars on the Indian Subcontinent. It repeatedly created a false
equivalence between those who tried to work within the norm of the UN and
those who rejected them.

The UN’s failure with Israel and India were particularly problematic
because these cases set precedents.

Article 2 of the UN charter prohibited the use of force against the
“territorial integrity “ of another state. Many states, disputing the
borders of their neighbors, could argue that this fundamental UN
prohibition was not applicable in their case, because their military incursion
did not violate their neighbor’s territorial integrity. Dozens of states
with irredentist claim could exploit this loophole, leading to
worldwide anarchical conditions. Why rely on the caveats of the UN charter when
Pakistan had moved into Kashmir and was not condemned? Why shouldn’t
they follow that lead?

Communist China was one nation, which took the advantage of the UN’s
failures. In October 1950, a half million PLA soldiers invaded Tibet to
assert China’s territorial claim. The question of whether the status of
Tibet was an internal affairs or a matter of International dispute has
been settled by overwhelming force.

The problem wasn’t that Chinese specifically examined that cases of
Indian or Israel and then decided that they could grab Tibet with
impunity. The problem was that the UN’s failure to act decisively had made it
difficult to discern a clear and broadly applied UN doctrine against
aggression. Stopping aggression was one of the main purposes for which the
UN had been founded; yet even in the few years since it was born,
aggression was spreading. In June 1950, just before the subjugation of
Tibet, a massive force from North Korea had invaded South Korea.

The absence of a firm norm against aggression plagued the UN in the
subsequent decades as well, India took the law into its hands in 1962,
when it overran the tiny Portuguese colony of Goa India could argue that
since the UN had NOT openly condemned Pakistan’s invasion of Kashmir,
India had also a right to use force, especially against an outdated
colonial outpost whose legitimacy, it would argue, the new global consensus
in the General Assembly did not accept.

The use of force to consolidate new states became the norm in the Third
World.

The UN was designed to fill a unique role. It was supposed to create
international standards that would help shape a more stable world order.
The UN Charter specifically empowered the UN Security Council to
determine whether an act of aggression had taken place (Article 39). The
mandate was clear, but unfortunately the UN has not been able to follow the
mandate consistently. The problem is that the UN Security Council is
not a court that determines the guilty or innocence of states by trying
to use objective legal criteria. It is first and foremost a political
body, and it has been grossly inconsistent in judging cases of
aggression. Moral relativism was an inevitable by-product of the UN’s work; often
the attacker was not treated very different from the victim of
aggression.

As early as the 1940’s and 1950’s the UN did not meet its
responsibility to respond to acts of aggression, and therefore it did not advance
the sense that there was an agreed basis for a new world order. Instead
what healed the international community together was the alliance system
created by the Cold War

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions or strategies of IntelliBriefs or any employee thereof. IntelliBriefs make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this blog and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.

IntelliBriefs blog reserves the right to delete, edit, or alter in any manner it sees fit blog entries or comments that it, in its sole discretion, deems to be obscene, offensive, defamatory, threatening, in violation of trademark, copyright or other laws, or is otherwise unacceptable